[Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..

Narelle Clark narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Thu Jan 15 04:57:11 UTC 2015

I think I am dissenting here.

If the three communities have distinctly different views on what constitutes consensus, and these diverge from our view also, we must make some sort of observations on this divergence.

I'm not suggesting we make decrees on 'goodness' or 'badness' of these, just the level of divergence with each definition.

It may be that the community as a whole will want to reconsider their own positions at a subsequent time as a result of this divergence.


From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2015 8:26 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Interpretation of 'Consensus' ..

No, I am suggesting that if a community determines that consensus in their community  is reached in a certain way and they provide no information related to reaching that consensus, that would be a basis for asking them to provide the information to make the application complete.  Only the community can determine what is a community consensus and if it was reached.
On 1/13/2015 1:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Joe and others:

I guess Im unclear:  if we "catalog" how the various communities determined that they had reached consensus, does that mean we could make the determination that their proposal failed to do so?  If so, then what?

Just want to be clear, as I see this particular approach as problematic.  It would be much cleaner to acknowledge that the communities achieved consensus by their own definition, and note this in our report without endorsement or reservation.


James Bladel

On Jan 13, 2015, at 06:00, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
I think we need to catalog how each community determines consensus as part of a transparent process and assure that they have met the requirements that their community has accepted, but I don't think it's up to us to impose any concept of uniformity on what consensus is for their process.  We do however need to understand what we mean by consensus for the assembled draft; which I believe has been discussed extensively on this list.

On 1/13/2015 8:14 AM, Manal Ismail wrote:
Dear All ..

I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails:

"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
a)      Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection
b)      Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"

whereas our consensus building document states:
"the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations:

*       Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings.

*       Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report."

Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts?

Kind Regards


Internal-cg mailing list

Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>


Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150115/3a70a694/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list